insidious biometrics, identity crises

[Jo Walsh <jo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

in the news i read today:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1029974,00.html
[[ ID cards to be tested in 'a small market town' ]]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=583
[[ BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY TO TACKLE IMMIGRATION ABUSE ]]


this stuff is sneaking up on us, and i'm reluctant to wait until it
becomes a social-technological crisis before preparing counterarguments.
as one of those "like-minded people who were positively encouraged to
reply" to the government's 'consultation' process by stand.org.uk[0], the
underlying theme here is pretty clear: universal ID cards, encoding
biometric data, introduced under the rational pretense of 'immigration
control', with the backend databases shared between those countries and
companies that can afford access.

there are reams of good technical reasons - identity, security, single
point of failure, obsolescence, etc - why this shouldn't be implemented
- let alone social / ideological reasons. it would be good to have a
cogent list of 'bullet points' to offer. as an individual, i can write
to my MP or to the broadsheets registering dissent, distaste - but
this kind of counterargument will sound a lot better, read a lot
better in the letters page of the grauniad and the times, coming from 
a pre-existing, disinterested group of technical professionals, 
such as, london.pm

is this a crackfuelled suggestion, and is it something with which the
majority of the 'group' would concur?

[0] http://danhon.com/ec/mtarchives/000552.shtml - provides a pretty
good summary of 'the story so far', as it stood in july


zx
--
"Common sense won't tell you. We have to tell each other." -DNA